Tunday Kabab - A hundred year old legacy of Lucknow is finally in Bangalore. Now Bangalore gets what the real Kababs are. Well they definitely are not the 'Chicken Pakoras' that are sold all over Bangalore in the name of kabab. Ideally kababs are always made of minced meat and don't have bones in them. A popular Hindi idiom 'Kabab main haddi mat bano' just bolsters that :).
The 100 year old Lucknow based 'Tunde ke Kabab' is the most famous outlet for choicest Kababs even today.
Many celebrities have been to this place from across the globe. The joint got its name when generations ago Mohammad Osman Haji started the enterprise with the special spices and ingredients that his ancestors had developed that were close to the gastronomic secrets of the kitchens of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah - the last of the kings, who was high on art, culture and music.
Haji was disabled and had only one arm. Tunde is an insensitive but general epithet given to one-armed people. However, in this case it became a term of endearment.
And it could not be at a better place than this in Bangalore - Koramangala near to Jyothi Nivas College [JNC ;)]. Well It has bigger and better seating arrangement than in Lucknow. BTW it matters only to those who have GF/BF. I still prefer to have my fav Kabab parantha roll on the streets. Hmm it the old world charm of having this delicacy that way.
My take -
Taste - Authentic Lucknavi
Price - Not so Lucknavi :( . Prices are through the roof almost 2 to 4 times that in Lucknow (Owing to Bangalore and it PPP ;) )
Ambience - Gud.
Overall - Prices are prohibitive but experience much of Lucknavi and believe it as it comes from a Lucknowite.
Well that all for now. Signing off.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
TV censorship
In some countries, TV and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries there is little or no censorship. According to me Government does have right to censor TV and radio programs , but it needs to be done pragmatically and I would like to support my stand in the writing to follow.
Every country has a unique ethos, culture and value system and it is the responsibility of its citizen to preserve the same. Any country where people have freedom to express their ideas has progressed and scaled new heights in development. But at the same time it is the moral responsibility of the citizens of the country to preserve the cultural fabric of the country. It is only when these thin boundary lines are transgressed that the government needs to step in.
I would like to give the example of India where the people have rights to express their thoughts and ideas freely, but the information and broadcasting ministry has strict guidelines for media houses to censor offensive language. All this with only sole intention to not let the offensive behavior /language to influence the public in general and children in particular.
Since the TV and radios are most powerful media, not exercising the cautious control can bolster the outrageous behavior. Examples are numerous. Be it the riots in Mumbai after Babri Mosque demolition in Ayodyha in 1992, Sikh Riots after assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984, Godhara Riots after torching of train in Godhra in 2002 or the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 where slain terrorists planned there moves according to visuals shown live and thereby killing hundreds of innocents.
Also in the US where the government exercises almost nil censorship over the media there have been a lot of cases, particularly involving small children and teens, who have resorted to criminal activity of varying degrees. On the psychological counseling most of them were found to have been influenced by the TV or radio programs having explicitly outrageous contents.
But perhaps the best example would be of the fidaayeen and jihadist who have resorted to numerous acts of terror worldwide. Here the covert TV and radio broadcasts have been used to brainwash them and use them as weapons of mass destruction killing thousands of innocents.
But too much censorship by the government is a bane. Example would be the Afghanistan in the Taliban era, or the strict government control over the media in China. All this had and is having a toll on psychological behavior of citizens. We have numerous examples in history that whenever the fundamental right of freedom of expression has been curtailed the answer to win that freedom has been extreme.
So to conclude I would say that while extremism of any kind in the censorship of media is bad and has a negative impact on the social milieu a pragmatic censorship is often good to shape and preserve the cultural ethos of any society.
Every country has a unique ethos, culture and value system and it is the responsibility of its citizen to preserve the same. Any country where people have freedom to express their ideas has progressed and scaled new heights in development. But at the same time it is the moral responsibility of the citizens of the country to preserve the cultural fabric of the country. It is only when these thin boundary lines are transgressed that the government needs to step in.
I would like to give the example of India where the people have rights to express their thoughts and ideas freely, but the information and broadcasting ministry has strict guidelines for media houses to censor offensive language. All this with only sole intention to not let the offensive behavior /language to influence the public in general and children in particular.
Since the TV and radios are most powerful media, not exercising the cautious control can bolster the outrageous behavior. Examples are numerous. Be it the riots in Mumbai after Babri Mosque demolition in Ayodyha in 1992, Sikh Riots after assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984, Godhara Riots after torching of train in Godhra in 2002 or the Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 where slain terrorists planned there moves according to visuals shown live and thereby killing hundreds of innocents.
Also in the US where the government exercises almost nil censorship over the media there have been a lot of cases, particularly involving small children and teens, who have resorted to criminal activity of varying degrees. On the psychological counseling most of them were found to have been influenced by the TV or radio programs having explicitly outrageous contents.
But perhaps the best example would be of the fidaayeen and jihadist who have resorted to numerous acts of terror worldwide. Here the covert TV and radio broadcasts have been used to brainwash them and use them as weapons of mass destruction killing thousands of innocents.
But too much censorship by the government is a bane. Example would be the Afghanistan in the Taliban era, or the strict government control over the media in China. All this had and is having a toll on psychological behavior of citizens. We have numerous examples in history that whenever the fundamental right of freedom of expression has been curtailed the answer to win that freedom has been extreme.
So to conclude I would say that while extremism of any kind in the censorship of media is bad and has a negative impact on the social milieu a pragmatic censorship is often good to shape and preserve the cultural ethos of any society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)